Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Clause 197

Power to make orders as to fisheries for shellfish

Amendment moved (this day): 56, in clause 197, page 124, leave out from beginning of line 11 to subsection in line 12 and insert
(1) Section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83) (power to make orders as to fisheries for shellfish) is amended as set out in subsections (1A) and (1B).
(1A) In..(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 57.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Government amendments 57 and 58.
Government new clause 5Variation etc of orders as a result of development.
Government amendment 62.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to return to the Committee to pick up where we left off this morning on shellfisheries. It might be helpful at this juncture to pick up on one point raised about the timeline. A genuine concern was aired about the nature and extent of the discussion and dialogue. Not many of us had a lot of time to see the word-by-word detail of the amendments, but the fundamentals of what is being proposed have been around for some time, and I will sketch them out briefly.
The Shellfish Association of Great Britain was working in 2007 on a memorandum of understanding with the Crown estates that featured most of the elements now contained in these clauses. The association has had a lot of opportunity, with my officials and others, to shape the proposals that have ended up in the Bill. Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have met on numerous occasions to discuss potential solutions to the Crown estate problem. However, it was only with the resolution of a court action, which concluded on 14 May, that negotiations could commence in earnest and in detail with interested parties, in particular the Crown and the shellfish industry. After that point, we could move from the entrenched positions that had had to be adopted while the court case proceeded.
The solutions proposed in the BillI shall turn to them in a moment, as I want to explain in detail how the package worksaim to put the relationship between the shellfish industry and landowners on a more commercial footing that is based on agreements, with mechanisms for developments to take place, but with compensation and the removal of consent, which everybody has wanted. Those proposals all come from the industry. If the Committee will bear with me, I will sketch exactly how the process will work in practice.
Government amendments 56, 57 and 62 will amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to remove the need for consent of the Crown estate or the duchies to be given before an order affecting any part of the sea shore on their land can be granted. Removing that requirement will give the Secretary of State the power to grant shellfish orders without Crown consent, removing a potential obstacle to granting new orders. Such a measure is sought by all parties, and I hope that it will be welcomed by all parties.
The removal of that procedure, which all parties consider to be outdated, will thus allow us to overcome the current impasse, in which a number of several and regulating orders are not being given. At the moment, shellfisheries cannot obtain certainty for long-term investment, despite the best efforts and good will of all parties. The amendments will allow us to overcome the impasse and start granting new several and regulating orders. Both the Crown estate and the shellfish industry support the proposal.
As the amendments all link together and come as a package, I will turn to amendment 58, which requires the appropriate Minister, when considering an application for a several and regulating order, to have regard to the powers and duties of the Crown Estate Commissioners. That is important because those powers and duties come from the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 already contains a statutory duty to consult the commissioners as land owners when considering an application for an order that will affect Crown land.
It is important that we recognise that the Crown Estate Commissioners have specific powers and duties that require them to act in a particular way. I must make it clear that the amendment does not grant the commissioners any extra powers, nor does it give them anything with regard to shellfish orders that they do not currently have. Having regard to the Crown estates powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them when arriving at a decision on whether to grant an order. We are not bound to accept any objection that they raise, just as we are not bound to accept any objection from any other landowner. The commissioners are constrained in what they can do with regard to the Crown estate in a way that other landowners are not. Our proposal merely acknowledges that difference.

David Jones: Before I put my question, I declare an interest: by an extraordinary coincidence, the legal firm of which I am a director represents one of the parties in the Menai strait action to which the Minister referred. I understand the thrust of his proposed solution to this difficulty, but the amendment states that Ministers should
have regard to the powers and duties.
Will he expand on that? To which powers and duties should they have regard, and how will they have regard to them? What will they do when they have regard to them?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall return to that very pertinent question in a moment, but first I want to flesh out the other parts of the proposal.
New clause 5 will insert powers to vary shellfish orders, which is important because it acknowledges the fact that landowners cannot always foresee what development opportunities might arise over the lifetime of an order, which is potentially 60 years. The new clause will allow an order to be varied when landowners, including the duchies and the Crown estate, want to develop land on which an order is in place and when that development would make it impossible, or impracticable, to exercise the right conferred on the fishery. The power to vary an order reflects our desire to put the relationship between the grantee and the landowner on a more commercial footing, with the use of commercial contracts or memorandums of understanding clearly to define the relationship and the system for dealing with future developments. In earlier discussions with the Government, both the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate supported such a measure.
Clause 69 sets out the issues to which the licensing authority must have regard in determining applications for marine licences. Under subsection 1(c), those issues include
the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea,
which in turn include fishing and shellfisheries. Thus the licensing authority is well able to have regard to fisheries interests and to reach a balanced view on the merits of an application.
We do not intend to interfere with this marine planning process by insisting that fishing interests should automatically override all other needs or uses of the sea. If the order is varied, the landowner could be liable to pay compensation to the grantee of a several order for the loss of part, or all, of the order. It will be open for the grantees and landowners to agree a level of compensation, either when the order is varied or right from the outset. We believe that the ability to consider such outcomes at the outset of the making of an order will help to put the relationship between the two parties on a much more commercial footing. It will also make the agreements more transparent. That idea was previously supported by the shellfish industry as well as the Crown estate. The new clause will provide certainty to grantees of shellfish orders and landowners and signal a new relationship allowing the industry to develop and move forward.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West asked about Crown powers. Those powers will be as set out in the Crown Estates Act, section 1(3) of which states that the commissioners will have a duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate
but with due regard to...good management.
A letter from DEFRA to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain dated 26 June stated:
Having regard to the CEs powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them in arriving at a decision as to whether to grant an Order. It does not mean that if the CE object to the creation of an Order that we are bound to accept their objection as valid and reject any applications to grant an Order in these circumstances. But it would be open to the CE to challenge the SoS as to how their view has been taken account of in our decision making process.
It is important that I read this next part into the record:
Similarly, we would be bound to explain to any consultee how their view has been taken account of in our decision making processes; the difference is that the CE have explicit statutory powers and duties and our proposal reflects that point. If as you hinted you have legal or other advice which contradicts this view, I would be grateful if you could share it or summarise it.
We concur with that view.

Andrew George: So that I can better understand the background, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that the Crown estate is answerable to the Treasury and to Parliament and that, under the 1961 Act, one of its primary objectives is to produce a surplus for the Treasury. Does that not create a potential conflict between two separate Government Departments, one of which is there to create financial surpluses for the Government, while the other surely seeks to maintain the responsible management of the marine resource? There is a clear conflict between two Government Departments, and I do not understand how the Ministers proposals are going to resolve it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I pointed out, the amendments have been subject to long discussions. They have been supported by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate, and they resolve that situation. There will always be a question of the need to resolve different interests across Whitehall. There needs to be close dialogue, whether one is thinking of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, marine planning or most aspects of Government.
It might be worth explaining how the Crown estate works. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the Crown estate manages Crown land on behalf of the Government, and the surplus revenue goes to the Treasury. In return, the monarch receives a fixed annual paymentthe civil list. The Crown estate is responsible to Parliament, but is run independently of the Government by a board of appointees. Let me give a brief history lesson of why we have got to where we are today. In 1955, a Government committee under the chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve recommended that to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Gale, I have been slightly distracted by the hon. Member for Broxbourne bringing what seems to be a weapon into the Committee.
To avoid the confusion between Government property and the Crown, the latter was to be renamed the Crown estate and managed by an independent board. Those recommendations were implemented by the Crown Estate Acts 1956 and 1961. Under the 1961 Act, the estate is managed by a board, which has a duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it, but with due regard, as I pointed out earlier, to the requirements of good management. The Crown estate must report to Parliament once a year, providing accounts and information about Crown estate activities for the year, including future activities.
In England and Wales, the legal presumption is that the sea bed and the foreshore are owned by the Crown, and that presumption extends to the bed of all tidal rivers and to all islands in tidal rivers and coastal waters. The presumption also applies in the absence of any evidence of a grant by the Crown to any private individual. It is estimated that the Crown estate owns about 50 per cent. of the UK foreshore.
We cannot use the Marine and Coastal Access Bill to ride roughshod over the Crown estates rights as set out in the Crown Estate Acts. To say that shellfisheries, for example, are more important than the Crown estates duty is not an argument that would make the running, and it would be very hard to get cross-Government agreement to amend either the Crown Estate Acts or this Bill in a way that would limit its rights.
Does the group of amendments deliver emphatically what everybody wants? The amendments contain the fundamentals of the discussions that have gone on for a long time to resolve problems, especially those between the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate. We have taken the fundamental areas of agreement in principle with those parties and incorporated them into five amendments that work togethernot separately. As was debated to some extent in the other place, by considering the amendments today as a packagenot one by onewe have a golden opportunity to have several and regulating orders back up and running, to give certainty to the shellfisheries industry, to recognise the rightful regard that we must also have to the Crown estate, to recognise variance where it is needed in long contracts, and to recognise that in some situations there might also be a need for compensation.
The amendments do all those things, and although I appreciate that their details have not been seen for long by many people, their fundamentals have been discussed ad nauseam in meetings with my officials, with me, and with many other people, including representatives of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate. There is good will to make this happen, and I urge Committee members to take the opportunity.

Andrew George: My point is about something that might be a detail within the Government amendments. The Minister refers to the role of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Their interest, as I understand it, applies only to the foreshore. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the foreshore is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall separately from the CrownI do not know which bits are owned by the Duchy of Lancaster. Therefore, presumably all that the Minister has just explained in relation to the Crown estate cannot apply in the same way to the duchies, and certainly not to the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not as answerable to Parliament and does not operate with the intention of producing a surplus for the Treasury. It is, in that sense, a different operation to the one that the IFCAs and the MMO will be negotiating.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Although the duchies perform much the same function as the Crown estate, and their land is affected by the creation of a shellfish order, it is not possible to express their rights clearly in primary legislation. I am assured that even though the duchies do not have an Act of their own that sets out their duties, as the Crown estate does, the amendments apply equally to them and the Crown estate. Therefore, the measure would equally apply to the duchies and to shellfisheries on those estates, and that has to be good news.

Richard Benyon: There is a perception that the Minister has bowled us a fast ball. I am grateful to him and his officials for providing me with background information, which I received relatively recently, and I have been endeavouring to understand what we are trying to achieve. The Minister makes a laudable effort to resolve a long-standing problem. However, strong concerns remain among shellfish fishermen and owners of shellfish rights around UK waters. We need to put their concerns on record, and the Minister needs to address them and, if it is his belief, point out that their perceptions are unfounded.
Those involved in the Menai strait case have made an impassioned plea that the matter not be dealt with at this stage, because they believe that that would undermine the foundations of their business. They believe that such an approach would be a laudable attempt to deal with the disease, but that doing so would kill the patient. We need a careful explanation of what the Minister is seeking by trying to solve the impasse between the Crown Estate Commissioners and DEFRA.
Some involved have for years defended their businesses against the proposals to build a marina within the Menai strait fishery. The proposal, in their view, would have crippled the UKs biggest mussel-producing area, which produces £5 million of mussels a year. They have just celebrated a Court of Appeal ruling, but now feel that it is being reversed by the Minister at the eleventh hour. I hear what the Minister says about the length of time that he has been in negotiations, but the Bill has seemingly been going through Parliament for an interminable time, and it is strange that we have reached this clause and are keen to tackle other elements of the Bill, but we are suddenly faced with Government amendments that are causing great concern.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that we originally did not conceive of addressing the matter in the Bill. However, in the other place, Baroness Wilcox and Baroness Miller identified a valid concern that we in the Department and others had been wrestling with for some time and wanted the opportunity to address. Such opportunities are rare, and now we have one, even though it was not originally conceived that we could do anything about the matter in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is the eleventh hour, but the other 10 hours and 59 minutes have been spent in some very detailed discussions.

Richard Benyon: I know that the Minister has consulted Baroness Wilcox among others. I confess that I have not, but I must do so before long because she has a great understanding of the matter. She might be broadly happy with what the Minister is doing, and she speaks for a sizeable group of people in the industry, but others are concerned. It has been put to us that if
the Committee makes the amendments, it will be paving the way for the destruction
of legitimate businesses,
hastening the demise of a sustainable marine cultivation industry worth £22M a year to the UK economy.
I should like to talk about the concerns of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I just want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have not spoken recently to either Baroness. As far as I know, they are as exercised about the measure as some in the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, as some in the association want the measures.

Richard Benyon: I am sure that that is the case. The more I get involved in coastal Britain, the more I know that one can never give an authentic voice for any particular industry, only for aspects of it.
The Shellfish Association is keen to put across the fact that the Government did not inform the industrys national trade association of the wording of the proposed amendments until after the Committee had begun. It strongly believes that the proposed amendments to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 will severely undermine the legal protection that it and its successor provide to shellfish farmers, which they have done for a great length of time.
The association would like the Minister to address three things: the criteria for any consideration by Ministers, the scope for any compensation payments, and the need for greater consultation. In the short time that I have had the information from the association, I have not been able to assess the amendments that it would propose or to put them to the Minister. I am asking for breathing space and for us to return to the matter on Report. He and I can work together constructively to ensure that the problem is solved quickly. However, at this stage, with the main industry body having very serious concerns, it would be wrong to make the amendments.

Andrew George: I rise to support the hon. Gentleman and his plea for the Minister to give the issue a further rethink. It was as a result of my coming into possession of the Government amendments at the weekend and, shortly thereafter, learning of the complaints and strong expressions of concern from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, that I tabled a measure relating to the Governments proposals, which of course could not be selected because of the time factor. That further underscores the difficulty of our eleventh-hour debate.
I appreciate the pressures under which the Department has been operating, and I do not doubt that there have been lengthy and complex negotiations. Like the hon. Member for Newbury, I find that trying to get my head around the confluence of different legislation about the Crown estate and shell fisheries, as well as trying to bolt that on to the Bill, is a significant challenge. I appreciate the Ministers argument about the industry not necessarily having one concerted and harmonious voice on this or any other issuesuch a claim is a matter for debate and can perhaps be tested outside the Committeebut I believe that we are being asked to consider the issue rather quickly.
The industry has seen the Ministers amendments and it has proposed alternatives. The right and proper thing to do is what several members of the Committee have done so far: table amendments, listen to the debate and then consider the consequences of rushing things through when we might have the opportunity to resolve issues on Report. The honourable course for the Minister in such circumstances is to accept that although important progress has been made in recent weeks, it is not sufficient to make me comfortable with the Governments present position. I would support the Minister more if he were to reflect on the concerns that have been expressed, withdraw the amendments and return with well worked-up amendments on Report, following further negotiations with the industry.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We have had a useful discussion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have probably shown ourselves to be willing to listen to and engage with the Committee, as well as to adjust, when necessary, and reflect on what has been said.
Let me address the impasse and the challenge of getting any agreement between the parties that had been to the High Court on the matter of shellfisheries. We were able to engage with them properly only after 14 May, when the action concluded. However, prior and subsequent to that, we have been fully engaged on a way forward. I can honestly say that if we were to take time to reflect over the summer and return on Report, the amendments before hon. Members would be no different. The detail is fresh to many of us, including me, but the amendments have come to fruition over a long time, and the fundamentals of this issue will not vary over the summer.
I will tell the Committee, quite honestly, what my concern is. Despite the fact that, as I have said, we are usually quite sympathetic to the idea of going away and reflecting on matters, my concern is that we will get to the end of the summer and one or other of the parties will walk away from the position where we are now. We have taken this long to get to a point where we have something that is broadly acceptable, even if some people are completely up in arms about itwe have to acknowledge that.
However, there are sections of the shellfish industry that currently do not have several and regulating orders. There are companies now that are struggling to make business and to take commercial decisions; there are companies that are faced with taking decisions about whether or not to continue investing in shellfisheries.
Let me turn directly to two of the points that were raised about the Menai strait case. [Interruption.] I will just deal with those points and then I will come back to other points, because I have a little more detail to flesh out here.
In respect of the Menai strait, which is where this proposal effectively came to fruition from, a question has been asked. If these amendments were accepted, would the marina on the Menai strait have been built? Could that have gone ahead? It is true that there is a chance that the marina would have been built, but I must say that it is far from certain. First, the developers would have had to apply for permission relating to the development under the new regime that is set out in the Bill, to request that the order be varied, and it is unclear whether that permission would have been granted. If the developers received permission, Welsh Ministers would still have to consider the request to vary the order. What is clear, however, is that the new variation process would have provided the grantees of the Menai strait order with a means of obtaining adequate compensation and the opportunity to vary the order, potentially to provide them with a new area to cultivate shellfish in. So I understand the concerns about the Menai strait, but I want to make it clear that we are not talking only about the Menai strait. We are talking about a very important, highly sustainable UK industry, which at the moment has no certainty to invest.

Richard Benyon: I entirely accept what the Minister says. However, the fact remains that, given that the industry has these very serious concerns, even if we were to approve these amendments today in Committee, that would not speed up the ability of shellfisheries elsewhere in the country to get those several rights. That will happen at Royal Assent. Consequently, we can sort this matter out on Report, everybody can feel that they have been consulted and unless I am missing somethingI admit that I am relatively a new boy to this Houseit can be resolved in exactly the same time scale as it would be if we accepted these amendments today.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me return to that issue in a moment, because there is a job to be done on working with the industry, the Crown estate and others who are potentially affected by this change; that is the job that needs to be done. Having said that, I maintain my position that what we have in front of us here are well crafted amendments that will do the job that many people have been asking us to do so for so long.
I will come back in a moment to how I think we should take that matter forward. Before I do so, let me address one of the other issues that was raised by the hon. Gentleman, about how compensation would be worked out. We see two possible ways in which compensation can be worked out. First, in commercial agreements between the landowner and the grantee of an order, the variation order can refer back to those agreements, which will either set the amount of compensation or how it is to be determined. Secondly, when considering a variation the Secretary of State can appoint an independent inspector to assess the appropriate level of compensation. That process would look at the value of shellfish that are landed and at any moneys paid to the grantee for the right to fish on the landowners land.
I want to address the crux of the matter and the potential way forward. I recognise that our amendments are detailed and, moreover, that they have caused some concern; I also must say that they have gained some support out there from parts of the shellfish industry and others. In fact, we are pleased to note that we have the acceptance of the clauses by the Crown estate and the duchies, and a potential applicant for a major order in Morecambe bay supports these amendments. We note that the recent briefing note from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain to the Committee focuses on the technical detail of the amendment and states that while accepting the thrust and aim of the proposed amendment and that it does serve as an effective mechanism to break the current logjam, it is suggested that the following amendments be made to the amendment.
Our amendment is written in such a way as to allow more detailed discussions about the criteria that Ministers would use before an order was varied and about how compensation would be calculated. We do not believe that it would be helpful now to limit those issues in the Bill. We need to consult and engage with the industry in detail on them. It is possible that a lot of what is being sought and what the hon. Member for Newbury raised can be achieved. I am more than willing to work with the hon. Gentleman, as I will work with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and othersthere are disparate interests within the shellfish industryto bring forward the notes and guidance, which we need to draw up in full consultation with the industry, the Crown estates and the duchies. We have the summer to get on with it.
In consulting with the industry, we will also ensure that individual grantees of orders, in addition to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, are allowed the opportunity to comment and provide input. I am more than happy to get on and continue that dialogue to flesh out with hon. Members how this will work, to identify where we can improve the operation of the new processes for varying orders and to bring forward the notes and guidance. That is what we need to get on with in the summer, because ever since I have been in this Department this issue has been a roadblock to investment in shellfisheries. We now have in front of ushere, now, todaya way forward. Over the summer, we can engage in constructive dialogue, which I invite hon. Members to get involved in, to flesh out where we are.

Andrew George: The Ministers arguments are becoming inconsistent. Earlier he told us that by making a decision here today and not waiting for Report to make the amendments, the industry could make commercial and investment decisions over the summer that would not be possible if we waited and withdrew the current amendments. Now he is saying that it will take all summer to negotiate a lot of the other conditions attached to the orders that back up the amendments. Surely these things can be negotiated simultaneously over the summer. Given the clear concern in the industry at present, surely the Minister must accept that his argument about making commercial and investment decisions over the summer does not stand. We can come back and consider everything together in a co-ordinated fashion on Report.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he might have misunderstood me, which might be my fault. We have the opportunity to send a clear signal based on the long and arduous discussions that we have had over quite some time. Over the summer, we should get on with fleshing out the detail of how we put the process into practice, not looking at revisiting amendments. Frankly, what is in front of us is based on the principles that many of those involved have been calling for. This is a very good set of amendments. We can delay and see if we can come back with something else, but I say to the hon. Gentleman seriously, if we substantially alter the amendments, one or other grouping will walk away from the table. I appreciate the lateness of seeing the detail, but the amendments are on areas where there has been consistent agreement on what needs to be done. We have the opportunity to signal today that we are now minded to deliver on this issue and to get on with the notes and guidance.

Richard Benyon: While I respect the Ministers desire to proceed, I still have not got an answer on the time scale and why it is different. If he can give an assurance that the industrys concerns will be listened to this summer, and that, if those concerns are valid, he will introduce amendments on Report, I will go quietly. I do not think that this is a good way of doing business. There has been fantastic consultation on the Bill with a range of organisations, none of which will be entirely happy, but most of which will be content. The issue under discussion is an exception, because a key coastal industry feels left out. If the Minister gives an assurance that, if the amendments are made, a proper consultation will take place, and that valid concerns that can be accommodated on Report will be listened to, I will go along with him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a good suggestion. The whole thrust of the Committee has been to listen solidly to opinions. I can honestly say that the provisions, even if they are analysed over the summer, will be shown to be right. I hear what the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives have said; we need to discuss how we will implement the provisions with the industry. I do not think that we will get a set of amendments that will satisfy everybodythat is the history of the issuebut if, during the summer, the amendments are suddenly shown to be defective, I will not close my mind to revisiting them. However, I am 99.99 per cent. certain that they are right.
We all need to engage with the industry and implement the solution to the impasse that is on offer. We will then consult properly over the summer. I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will engage with that and recognise that we are balancing the issues of a highly viable future for shellfisheriesalthough, without the several and regulating orders, their future is terribly uncertain at the momentwith the absolute necessity to have due regard to the Crown Estates and their powers.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Amendments made: 57, in clause 197, page 124, line 14, at end insert
(1B) Omit subsection (4) (certain consents required for orders made in relation to land belonging to Crown etc)..

This amendment would remove the need for an order made under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to have the consent of the Crown Estate Commissioners or representatives of the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster before it can be made.
Amendment 58, in clause 197, page 124, line 14, at end insert
( ) In Schedule 1 to that Act (provisions with respect to making of orders under section 1), in paragraph 6
(a) the existing provision is renumbered as sub-paragraph (1), and
(b) after that sub-paragraph insert
(2) Where the proposed order relates to any portion of the sea shore belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the appropriate Minister shall also have regard to the powers and duties of the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Crown Estate Act 1961..

This amendment would require the appropriate Minister, when considering an application for a several or regulating order, to have regard to the powers and duties of the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Crown Estate Act 1961.(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Clause 197, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 198 to 220 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 221

Byelaws: compensation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Martin Salter: Very good chairing, Mr. Gale, and frighteningly quick. Clause 221 amends section 212 of the Water Resources Act 1991. I have been persuaded not to table an amendment to the clause. I am not having second thoughts, but I am slightly queasy having looked at the issue again. Section 212 of the 1991 Act gives fishery owners who are affected by certain byelaw changes the right to claim compensation. That is clearly outdated. Sea fishermen have no right to claim compensation if a decision on quotas is made for sound conservation reasons. Why on earth should owners of inland fisheries, such as a put-and-take rainbow trout fishery in which the hon. Member for Broxbourne might recreate with his fishing rod, be able to claim compensation if such a decision is made by the Environment Agency or other competent body for good scientific, environmental or ecological reasons?
Clause 221(2), which amends the Water Resources Act 1991, states:
In subsection (1), for the words from the claim to the end substitute the Agency
meaning the Environment Agency
may pay that person such amount by way of compensation as it considers appropriate.
However, I would rather delete the subsection altogether. The Joint Committee considered evidence that led us to conclude that there are times when the Environment Agency is nervous about making the right byelaws, or taking the right decision for fisheries and the environment, because of the threat of compensation. What I want to know from the Minister is exactly how the phrase as it considers appropriate will be interpreted. If appropriate means a big fat zero, that is very appropriate from where I stand, as there needs to be a level playing field. If the word appropriate is going to continue to raise doubts in the minds of officials, particularly in the EAI have praised them this morning, but they can be risk-averse at timesand if it will hinder them from taking decisions that will benefit the environment, I remain concerned.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman will recall the spring salmon conservation measures that the EA introduced to protect scarce spring runs on many rivers in England and Wales. A number of fishery owners and fishermen were very nervous about those conservation measures, but by and large the measures have been hugely successful. They have started to increase spring salmon runs, and they have started to ingrain the culture of catch and release among game fishermen. That started with spring salmon, but has extended throughout autumn and summer runs.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman strengthens the point. Indeed, my next address to the nation, in a moment, will be on precisely those issuesfish steps, catch and release, and the new byelaw-making powers that we propose to grant to the EA. There is no doubt that the conservation measure he mentions was successful, and he is right to say that we have ingrained into game fishinggame fishermen have been a little slow on the uptake regarding the benefits of catch and releasesensible conservation measures.

Charles Walker: One of the original responses from such fishermen was, Well, if I cant keep the salmon I catch, Im not going to bother going fishing for them, and many fishery owners were concerned that they would lose revenue, but that threat never materialised. Indeed, more fishermen are now pursuing spring salmon, because there are a few more of them around.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are anglers, not fishmongers. Frankly, given the cost of salmon fishing, most of the people who can afford to do it can afford to go to Waitrose or somewhere else for their fish. The argument that we fish only for the pot belongs in a bygone age.
To conclude, I should like some assurance from the Minister regarding what exactly is meant by the phrases in subsection (2). Does he share my concern that one interpretation of that wording could continue to make some agencies risk-averse when we want people to be bold on behalf of the environment?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I do share those concerns, and I have given the matter considerable thought. The phrase as it considers appropriate in clause 221(2) takes us to the meat of this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that the obligation to pay compensation to an owner or occupier of any fishery that is injuriously affected by a fisheries byelaw has at times discouraged the EA from proposing byelaws that are necessary for the conservation of fish stocks. Let me give my hon. Friend some assurance by stating quite clearly that I consider that compensation should not be paid in circumstances in which the byelaw in question was made for the express purpose of conserving fish stocks, as increases in stocks will ultimately benefit fishery owners. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he rightfully seeks on this issue, because we want the EA to make the right decisions where appropriate in such circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 221 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 222

Theft of fish from private fisheries etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Martin Salter: I want to flag up an issue of huge concern to recreational anglers, and certainly coarse anglers, who form the vast majority of those who fish for pleasure, rather than for a living: the outmoded and arcane system of byelaws currently in place in this country. Those byelaws are probably not legally enforceable when it comes to the taking of fish. It is perfectly possible for someone to go fishing in the Thames area under a regime that allows two fish of certain species to be taken, provided that they are over a particular size, and then to cross the road into the Anglian region, where totally different byelaws are in place.
It is impossible for those of us who have fished all our lives to know whether we are on the right side of a regime boundary and what its particular byelaws are. It is totally impossible for eastern Europeans, many of whom are keen fishermen, to understand those byelaws and know where they apply. The Poles are particularly keen recreational anglers and help boost the number of people who go fishing in this country, but sadly they have a culture of taking fish for the pot, which has caused problems in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newbury. I can understand that, because in their culture the Christmas delicacy is carp, Britains single most popular fish.
Carp is worth millions to the economy because of the livelihoods it sustains in the fishing tackle industry and the fisheries, and the diversity from which farmers have been able to generate additional income. It is a hugely valuable recreational resource, but it is perfectly possible for someone to fish in the Thames at Reading, Pangbourne or Goring and catch a prize, 30 lb carpa fish for which anglers would wait years in the hope of catchingand barbecue it legally on the bank. That does not do much for community relations. It is the result of a clash of cultures, and it is not illegal. As my party spokesmans on angling, I am bombarded with letters from anglers from all over the country asking why we are not going after those people and prosecuting them, but the practice is legal, because our byelaws are unenforceable, unintelligible, vary from region to region and need radical overhaul.
To touch upon a point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, we need a comprehensive system of catch and release. I am pleased to announce that, in response to lobbying by yours truly and the excellent new Angling Trust, the governing body for angling, the Environment Agency has not waited for Parliament to conclude its deliberations on the Bill: consultation is now running parallel to our deliberations in Committee. The consultation was launched on 22 June and closes on 14 September. I encourage all of Britains 3 million anglers to participate in that, because it is a radical overhaul of a system that is, frankly, unworkable and indefensible.
We also need to decide who owns fish and to determine which fish swim in public water. Fish in a river can never be owned by anyone and therefore need the protection of workable byelaws. Fish in an enclosed pond or lake, however, are different. I occasionally fish in a lake not far from a house owned, I believe, by the family of the hon. Member for Newbury, and those fish belong to the Englefield estate, but the 30 lb carp I mentioned, if swimming up the Thames, belongs to no one. If I were to remove a fish from the hon. Gentlemans lake on the Englefield estate, he would undoubtedly, if so inclined, call the police, and I could be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968, although the schedule of penalties is low and not a huge disincentiveI would probably get more money selling carp than I would ever have to pay in fines.
The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the changes in the amendments would increase the schedule of fines. The matter can be resolved, and there is legislation in place, which needs to be improved. Until we address the byelaws and until we encourage the Environment Agency to bring forward a coherent system of regulation, we will still have the problem of people taking fish for the pot, illegal movement of fish, and fisheries legislation that makes no sense to the angler who pays £25 or £26 for their rod licence.

Charles Walker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I support him wholeheartedly. However, he will be aware that a number of trout streams across England have a tradition of removing a limited number of fish for the pot. Catch and release is growing, but there are some streams that are so populated with small trout that there can be a sustainable take from them. What does he propose to do in those circumstances?

Martin Salter: That is why a consultation has been launched by the Environment Agency. That is why it is right and proper that we seek not to prescribe the matter in the Bill, but to give the Environment Agency the byelaw-making powers. There is a world of difference between a river that is primarily a coarse fish river where one would expect fish to be returned, and a stream where one can generate a sustainable harvest. There is a world of difference between people stealing fish to reseed and populate other fisheries in a way that could spread diseases, particularly KHVkoi herpes virus, which could decimate carp stocks in the UK if uncheckedand sensible fisheries management.
I hope that the Environment Agency will use the powers we give it to bring forward byelaws that will deliver a national catch and release policy with exceptions. Those exceptions could include the trout stream of the hon. Member for Newbury, or sensible, well-organised clubs such as Newbury angling club, or the Reading and district or Thatcham angling associationsto give the clubs in our constituencies a plugwhich could apply to the relevant Environment Agency fisheries officer for an exemption. Until we bring in a framework that is coherent, understandable and enforceable, we will not make sense of the issue.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This has been another good discussion about the Bill and what is happening outside it too. My hon. Friend is right to point out that currently fish theft carries a maximum penalty of £200 during the day and £1,000 at night, and, potentially, imprisonment for three months. Clause 222 amends paragraph 2 of schedule 1 of the Theft Act 1968, raising the penalty for committing the offence of taking or destroying fish to level 5 on the standard scale£5,000. Some such fish, not least carp, change hands on the black fish market for £1,000 a piece and more.
My hon. Friend referred to the consultation recently launched by the Environment Agency. I am pleased that the Angling Trust and others are fully engaged in the consultation, on how many fish, if any, might be taken from fisheries and rivers. The byelaws will be drafted based on the public response to the consultation, using the powers in the Bill. Those byelaws will deal with fish theft, and the EA has been constrained to act before the amendments give it the power, once the Bill has received Royal Assent. I also draw my hon. Friends attention to powers that we have given the EA, under clause 218, to make byelaws to set maximum size limits on fish that may be removed from a fishery.
Finally, schedule 16(8) would remove the current exemption for owners of certain private fisheries to permit anglers to remove freshwater fish during the close season, as that would undermines any catch and release byelaws that the agency may introduce to address fish theft. My hon. Friends points are well made.

Martin Salter: I thank the Minister. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to him for addressing a number of issues in subsequent clauses, which will save me from seeking further stand part debates. Can I push him on the broader powers of the Environment Agency? He will be aware that I recently convened a meeting of recreational anglers to find out what they were looking for in a marine Bill. Concern was expressed over whether the Environment Agencys current duty to improve, develop and maintain fisheries, and enhance the social and economic contribution of fisheries, would continue. I see no sign that it will not, but I invite the Minister to put that on the record because reassurance would be much appreciated by Britains 3 million anglers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance on the record today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 222 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 223 to 227 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16

Migratory and freshwater fish: consequential and supplementary amendments

Martin Salter: I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 16, page 283, line 22, leave out 21 and insert 22.
My amendment relates to section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Minister will be aware that I raised the issue briefly on Second Reading. I noticed a bit of a mismatch between the Bill and that Act. Basically, section 22 has been left unrepealed, unlike the provisions relating to proceeds. We have proposed legislation to ban the sale of rod-caught salmon, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne pointed out, but missed the opportunity to ensure that the same provision follows through within the marine Bill. We now have the chance to put that right.
The dates when sale of salmon and trout is prohibited no longer correspond to the close seasons for those species. We are giving the Environment Agency complete flexibility to set close seasons through byelaws. That can only result in confusion on the riverbank. Section 22 is redundant and should be repealed. I know that that is the opinion of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and other fisheries specialists. Therefore, the Minister has the opportunity to accept this minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency across the piece.

Ann McKechin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, and he makes a strong case for the sections repeal given that one of the key drivers is the repeal of old and obsolete legislation. However, the amendment does not quite do the trick, as the repeal of section 22 also needs to be reflected in part 5(B) of schedule 22 to the Bill. I have also been advised by my officials that that section of the 1975 Act applies to both England and Wales, and also to the Scottish side of the border at the River Esk. Accordingly, as the remit of the Environment Agency covers neither Wales nor Scotland, it would be appropriate for us to consult with the devolved Administrations as to how the section would affect their own domestic legislation.
My hon. Friends amendment could leave us in a confusing situation in which it could be unclear whether section 22 is repealed. I am sure that he will want to avoid that situation. Accordingly, I should like him to withdraw his amendment on the basis that we will consult, as appropriate, with the devolved Administrations about the repeal of the section, and come back to the matter on Report.

Martin Salter: I am not as comforted by the Ministers assurance as I should like to be. All I am hearing is a commitment to consult. The arguments against accepting the amendment as it appears on the amendment paper will result in technical adjustments to a schedule and the need to consult with devolved Administrations. I am not sure whether I am in order, but I invite the Minister to intervene on me to give me a slightly stronger assurance than a commitment to consult because, frankly, the cats in the streets could commit themselves to consult.

Ann McKechin: With respect to my hon. Friend, when we make legislation that affects devolved Administrations it is important that we do not give undertakings in Committee on their behalf, but consult them before making changes. I have made it clear that we will carry out that consultation between now and Report. I am sure that the outcome will be positive, and that we will be able to come back on Report with an appropriate amendment, but the amendment might not be in the exact terms that my hon. Friend has sought, as it might not be appropriate in Scotland or Wales, where the Environment Agencys remit does not extend.
I also take this opportunity to clarify a statement made in the House on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may have implied that part 7 of the Bill would give responsibility for managing marine fisheries to the Environment Agency. He wishes it to be known that the new and more flexible powers given to the agency in that part of the Bill are exercisable only in respect of fisheries for migratory and freshwater fish.
I have been told that the Environment Agencys remit does in fact cover Wales and the Scottish borders at the River Esk, so I apologise for any confusion, but we have not had the chance to discuss the amendment with the devolved Administrations, so my points about the need to consult them remain. We will consult on the matter and come back to it on Report.

Martin Salter: I thank the Minister for that magnificently robust response and point out that one purpose of raising such issues on Second Reading and saying clearly on the record that
We must return to this issue in Committee, but I wanted to put a marker down for the Whips to expect an amendment[Official Report, 23 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 744.]
is precisely to give the ministerial team time to prepare a robust response, and possibly even to trigger the consultation. If the issue is not resolved, I will divide the House on the matter further down the road, but I accept the assurances given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

New Clause 5

Variation etc of orders as a result of development
In section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83) (power to make orders as to fisheries for shellfish), for subsection (6) substitute
(6) Any order made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under this section.
(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, subsections (1) to (5) above shall apply in relation to any such subsequent order and to an application for such an order as they apply in relation to an original order made under this section and to an application for such an order.
(8) Subsection (7) above does not apply in the case of any order made by virtue of subsection (10) below.
(9) Subsection (10) applies in any case where it appears to the appropriate Minister that
(a) permission has been granted for the carrying out of any development in, on or over any portion of the sea shore to which an order made under this section relates (the affected area), and
(b) as a result of the development, it will be impossible or impracticable to exercise any right of several fishery or of regulating a fishery conferred by the order in the affected area.
(10) In any such case, the appropriate Minister may
(a) vary the order so that the area to which the order relates no longer includes the affected area, or
(b) if the affected area comprises the whole or the greater part of the area to which the order relates, revoke the order.
(11) The provision that may be made by an order made by virtue of subsection (10) above includes
(a) provision requiring the owners of the affected area to pay compensation to any persons who, at the time of the making of the order, are entitled to a right of several fishery in any part of the affected area by virtue of an order under this section;
(b) provision for the amount of any such compensation to be specified in, or determined in accordance with provision made by, the order (including provision for or in connection with the appointment of a person to make such determination).
(12) Before making an order by virtue of subsection (10) above, the appropriate Minister must consult
(a) any persons who are entitled to a right of several fishery or a right of regulating a fishery in any part of the affected area by virtue of an order under this section, and
(b) the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees and occupiers, if any, of the affected area.
(13) The appropriate Minister may require the owners of the affected area to provide him with such information relating to the development as he may reasonably require for the purpose of deciding whether to make an order by virtue of subsection (10) above.
(14) In this section development has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990..(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

This amendment would provide a new procedure for varying several or regulating orders where a proposed development would make it impossible or impracticable to exercise the rights conferred by the orders. It also makes provision for compensation to be paid in such cases to holders of rights of several fishery.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 228

Repeal of spent or obsolete enactments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: Briefly, the purpose of the clause, as I understand it, is to repeal what the Department considers to be obsolete or spent enactments. I agree with the spirit of what is proposed, which is a clear cross-party commitment to reduce regulatory burdens on the private, public and voluntary sectors through the conclusion of the Davidson review, as the explanatory notes supporting the Bill explain. I could ask Ministers to address each of the measures, but I will not do so.
I am particularly interested in the most ancient of the enactments, the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. I am told by those engaged in the industry that the Act was not so much about regulation or control as an enabling piece of legislation, which I am given to believe has aspects that are still extant and operational, particularly in Scotland, and that enable access to the white herring fisheries industry that might not otherwise apply if the Act is repealed. For that reason, I would welcome any advicevia any channel of inspirationthat the Minister can provide in order to furnish the Committee with an explanation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I admit that I am stumped. The hon. Gentleman has beaten me on the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. When I am defeated, I admit defeat. I do not have the information to hand, but I shall definitely consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 228 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 229

Marine enforcement officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: I hope that I am not wearing your patience thin, Mr. Gale.
Will the Minister explain the interrelationship between the MMOs operational area and enforcement officers and the IFCAs? To what extent can different enforcement officers co-operate with each other? Currently, sea fisheries committees have their own enforcement arrangements. Presumably, the purpose behind MCZs is to have internal integrity even when their boundaries extend beyond the six-mile limit. A common sense approach would be for enforcement to be seamless across the six-mile zone. I looked for such an approach in the Bill, but did not find it.
The six-mile limit is a contentious issue, especially for those in the inshore industry. In particular, those who lay static gear in, or around, the six-mile zone, often find that their gear has been towed away by foreign vessels fishing up to, and sometimesillegallybeyond that zone. Without a very good understanding and working relationship between enforcement officers, the six-mile zone will be less well policed than almost anywhere else. That remains a particularly contentious issue. Many engaged properly and responsibly in the industry believe that the law is being regularly flouted. I look forward to the Ministers response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to be able to provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. We are not reinventing the wheel. Our approach is based on current best practice. The overlapping geographic jurisdiction that he has described will be managed as it is now through close co-operation at an operational level in England and through the Environment Agencys and the MMOs seats on each English IFCA. There will also be statutory consultation and a duty on IFCAs to co-operate with the EA. Cross-warranting of enforcement officers will enable the MMO and EA officers to enforce IFCA byelaws, and vice versa, thereby making the best use of expensive enforcement assets.
We want resources to be used well and people and organisations to work together. The clause allows marine enforcement officers to be appointed by the MMO and Welsh Ministers. Such officers could include commissioned officers of the Royal Navy. In fact, anyone in the Royal Navy, RAF or Army in charge of an aircraft or hovercraft will automatically be marine enforcement officers. The clause also allows for the Secretary of State to appoint marine enforcement officers in advance of the establishment of the MMO, so that we can get on with business. It is also worth saying in passing, because it did not have a lot of debate in the other place, that marine enforcement officers will also receive training to ensure that they use their powers properly and safely. We expect that the first MEOs will be existing British sea fisheries officers who have already received MEO training. He is right to make that observation. We want to make best use of collaboration and co-operation and the Bill allows that to happen and to build on existing best practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 229 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 230 to 243 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 244 to 271 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 272 to 289 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 290

The coastal access duty

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 290, page 186, line 28, at end insert
(6A) Where excepted land described in paragraphs 3 and 11 of Schedule 1 to the CROW Act (excepted land for purposes of Part 1) becomes land which is not excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin by virtue of an order made under section 3A of the CROW Act, in discharging the coastal access duty in relation to the creation of new rights of way Natural England and the Secretary of State shall use their best endeavours to treat such land as excepted land unless they are satisfied that there are no practicable alternatives..
We have reached a milestone in our deliberations. We have completed the really important area of the Bill and we are now dealing with something that has been bolted on. Before the Minister rolls about in laughter, what I am actually saying is that this is a very important part of the Bill, but I would have liked it to have been considered separately. What we have discussed up until now is something that has been long called for by a great many people. Coastal access is equally important, but to perhaps a different group of people.
When I say that I am extremely supportive of increasing access to our coastline, Members on the Government Benches might be waiting for me to say but. When I say but I believe that the legislation can be tightened and improved, but I would like to put on the record that I have always been a supporter of providing greater access to our countryside. There are a variety of different ways of doing that and this is, perhaps, a noble objective, but there are areas where it can be improved.
The amendment seeks to address an issue that was picked up in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and should be reflected in this legislation; that is, to secure the privacy and protection from members of the public for certain types of building. I will describe why this is extremely important. The new section 3A of the Act states that the CROW Act protection for dwellings and for buildings used for livestock where the public do not have a right of access within 20 m will be moved in relation to the coastal margin.
The justification for that, I am sure, is that a coastal path will, by its nature, in places require closer access to certain buildingswhether they are peoples houses, agricultural buildings, or any other type of building. That really needs some serious thought. Existing rights of way that will become part of the coastal route and already come within 20 m of dwellings or livestock buildings are no argument for saying that this proximity should be visited on any other dwelling or livestock building on the coastal strip.
The amendment provides that where land close to dwellings or livestock buildings has had its excepted protection removed by virtue of a new section 3A order, Natural England and the Secretary of State should none the less be under a statutory duty to treat such land as if it were excepted land. I will put in a caveat there. There may be certain circumstancesvery fewwhere the Secretary of State needs some leeway. An example might be where a promontory or salient of land is squeezed in really narrow terms, in the unlikely event of there being a building there. In other words, in designing and approving the coastal access scheme, Natural England and the Secretary of State should be obliged to avoid creating new rights of way which are positioned in close proximity to human dwellings, or buildings used for farm livestock.
Many residents who live on or very close to the coastline view the coastal access scheme with great concern. Therefore it is reasonable that they should be assured that every effort is being made by the authorities to avoid invading their privacy and the enjoyment of their properties, wherever it is practicable to do so. More importantly, in respect of farm buildings, there is a serious issue of farm biosecurity to be taken into account. As well as the day-to-day management of livestock and agricultural activities, safety for walkers, as well as for livestock, is paramount and must be considered.
We must learn from foot and mouth and other farm diseases. We require a much higher level of biosecurity than we have been happy to accept in the past. I know that the Minister will say that, in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak, farmers and landowners will be allowed to close areas around farm buildings containing livestock. That may be so, but it will probably be too late to do that in many areas. A simple amendment, such as this one, requiring what is already accepted in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to be applied in this Bill will prevent walkers from walking up to a lambing building, for example, looking over the fence, contaminating the animals and carrying disease. There are some important points to be made on biosecurity and, equally, on safety.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong, powerful case. He talks about the powers available to the Secretary of State for the closures of footpaths and rights of way in an emergency, such as a foot and mouth outbreak, but of course in the countrysidehe will know this as a landowner and a farmerif people have got used to using a certain route and there are no people on the ground to enforce closures, perhaps the best thing is to ensure that that footpath does not run in a potentially dangerous place in the first instance.

Richard Benyon: That is precisely what I am trying to achieve here. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point so eloquently.
One problem with the Bill is that, as with the CROW Act, there can be all sorts of exclusions. However, the majority of people who want to walk in the countryside are not the sort who sit down and look at the local authority website, buy a map, find out where exclusions exist and know when they are leaving farmer As land and moving on to farmer Bs and what exclusions and constraints are in place there. So we have to work with the grain of human nature and that means, at the basic level, having an exclusion zone around farm buildings and dwellings where people live. I hope that the Government will accept this important amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome Committee members welcoming this part of the Bill, albeit the hon. Member for Newbury regards it as something of a bolt-on. We regard it as an integral part and parcel of what we propose, because the demand for responsible access to the coast is huge. We are now making more than 70 million trips to the undeveloped coast every year. Recent research shows that walking is the single most popular activity along the coast. The thrust behind this part of the Bill, which is on improving access, is to give people the confidence and the certainty that, when they arrive at the coast there will be clear, well-managed access in either direction and they will be able to enjoy a rich, varied natural environment that many people take for granted.
Under the legislation the Secretary of State and Natural England will be given a new duty to secure two objectives. The first objective is to do with the long-distance route or routes around the whole of the English coast, accessible to the public for journeys on foot. The second objective is that there be a wider margin of recreational land accessible by foot that the public can enjoy in conjunction with the route. Both aims gained broad support during pre-legislative scrutiny.
In the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach remarked:
We fully support the establishment of the coastal route and we also see the value of the second objective in Clause 286,
which is now clause 290
to expand access sufficiently to allow for recreation.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 12.]
Lord Greaves also welcomed the coastal access and quoted the Hobhouse report of 1947:
The love of open air is nowhere more clearly shown than in the use which is made of the coasts of this country. For countless thousands the seaside is almost synonymous with the annual summer holiday.[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 877.]
These proposals have to be sustainable and workable. One of the themes that we will draw out in the discussion is the input from local people and organisations to bring the routes forward. That underpins amendment 41, which refers to two categories of excepted land under schedule 1 to the CROW Act:
Land within 20 metres of a dwelling.
and
Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.
Proposed new section 3A(4) of the CROW Act, which is set out in clause 297(5), will allow the Secretary of State by order to modify the provisions of part 1 of the CROW Act
in their application to land which is coastal margin.
I recognise the concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of excepted land, as they affect land that is coastal. We published a paper on the order and excepted land, which set out the main measures we expect to be contained in the order.
We have said that land within 20 m of a dwelling will not be excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin because that would not be appropriate where access would be limited to a margin of land next to the sea. In many cases on the coast, there is already access closer than 20 m from a dwelling and it does not cause problems. Further protection is provided by paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which excepts buildings and curtilage.
We have no intention of changing the category under paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which is mentioned in the amendment:
Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.
However, we have said that we are minded to remove paragraph 10 to schedule 1:
Land within 20 metres of a building which is used for housing livestock.
The hon. Member for Newbury rightly raises concerns over biosecurity. However, there are safeguards in the excepted land category because we believe that
buildings or the curtilage of such land
would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. There is also a power in the CROW Act to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, so those powers are already in place. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that I would refer to the Animal Health Act 2002. Should there be an outbreak of animal disease, there are powers under that Act to close land where appropriate.
We think that we can deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman with the provisions of the CROW Act, particularly the exception for buildings and their curtilage, and the powers in the 2002 Act.

Richard Benyon: I want to get this absolutely right. The Minister believes that it is possible within this legislation to have the 20 m around a building as excepted land.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Within the CROW Act, there are safeguards in the excepted land category. I have referred to the category of buildings and their curtilage, which we believe would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. Under the CROW Act, there is also that ability to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, which I suspect would serve the purpose the hon. Gentleman is trying to satisfy. There are already provisions that can lead to curtailment of access for such reasons so the amendment is not needed.
We will have a further opportunity to debate and discuss the categories of excepted land during the consultation and the debate that we will need to have on the affirmative resolution order under proposed new section 3A of the CROW Act. On that basis, it is not appropriate to accept amendment 41. It would prejudge the results of the consultation on a section 3A order. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, but there is an opportunity to contribute to the consultation on the 3A order, and it should not be prejudged in the Bill. His rightful concerns can form part of the consultation and shape the sort of access that we want. He raised genuine concerns, but I do not think that stamping the measure hard and fast into primary legislation here and now is required. What is required is engagement with the existing powers and consultation on under a 3A order.

Richard Benyon: So much of this is going to depend on Natural England. In our discussions, the Minister and his team sounded very emollient and understanding of the needs of those who live and work along the proposed route. However, The Sunday Telegraph, which has made enjoyable reading for hon. Members in recent weeks, had a supplement this week that identified some coastal walks. Importantly, the walks incorporate existing rights of way and voluntary access provision. When one looks closely at the maps of some of the walksthey are around the country and some are in Scotlandone notices that they do not stick dogmatically and rigidly to a route purely on the grounds that it has to provide coastal access. The walks take in the needs of the walker and access and egress points from the coastal route. They also take in the needs of the land user, and routes are deliberately devised to avoid important buildings and access to them. The routes also offer the best views.
We can learn from voluntary access agreements in framing the Bill. A lot of work could have been done to expand and fulfil the Ministers manifesto objectives to increase access to coastal Britain using a voluntary approach. I lay down a marker: where the Bill is too dogmatic and where it allows a simple-minded approach from certain authorities in how they progress the plan, we will seek to amend it. I hope, with the Ministers assurances, that we can address the very important issue of farm buildings.
I have one more important point to make. Many existing footpaths go through farm yards, but the direction of travel on footpath designation in the countryside is moving them out of farm yards, for safety and biosecurity reasons. Some farm yards in my constituency are the convergence point for four different footpaths. During the foot and mouth outbreak, enforcing exclusions was a nightmare for those farmers. One of the great values of the Bill is that it will improve tourism in certain areas, which is why it has been welcomed by many people who live in coastal areas, and why it is important that we get it right. Some farm houses will seek to benefit from the Bill by opening bed and breakfasts. By excluding the route from the vicinity of a farm house whose owners want to benefit from tourism, we could be damaging a legitimate and important part of their business. It is perfectly possible to access the dwelling house without accessing the farm buildings. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that those concerns will be carried through the Bill.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours politically, and a project that runs through both our constituencies is a testimony to the value of an effective voluntary agreement. The Sustrans cycle path along the Kennet and Avon river and canal had the potential to generate serious conflict between different users, but we had the good sense to sit down and consider whether the towpath route would get in the way of fishermen, bird watchers, walkers or boaters, and reconfigured the route so that all stakeholders were happy. The voluntary approach worked well, and I think neither he nor I had a single complaint during our time as public representatives as a result of that approach. Surely that should inform how we deal with coastal access wherever possible.

Richard Benyon: Absolutely, and if the Minister had delegated responsibility for delivering his manifesto to me, I would have been able to provide his Government with a wonderful scheme involving local landowners and farmers in a way that has worked in my area and around the country. I just hope that the flexibility that he talks about will exist, and if he can assure me that those practices will be taken into account, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The argument is somewhat circuitous, because we are arguing both for a blanket-type approach and for flexibility. I assure him that in the consultation we anticipate removal of the standard 20 m exemption in CROW, but we want more flexibility for landowners, farmers and others who want to use their premises on the coast for cafĂ(c)s, restaurants or bed and breakfasts. We want flexibility, and input into the consultation is key to protect their interests as well as those of people with genuine biosecurity interests. That is where we want to make progress. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Bill.

Richard Benyon: I will not withdraw the BillI do not yet have that powerbut I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 290 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 291

General provision about the coastal access duty

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 291, page 187, leave out aim to.

This amendment is designed to tighten up the duty on Natural England to strike a fair balance between new access rights given to the general public and the existing rights of those members of the public who own or have an interest in land which will become the coastal margin.
This is a simple amendment, which removes aim to in line 17 so that Natural England and the Secretary of State must
strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.
We will discuss what constitutes a relevant interest in the land at a later stage, but the amendment would tighten the duty on Natural England to strike a fair balance between the new access rights and the existing rights of members of the public who own or have an interest in land that will become the coastal margin. It is important that the Minister understand that the wording in this part of the Bill is key. Tightening it by removing two simple words could give comfort to many people without limiting the Bills aim of providing greater access.

Ann McKechin: The amendment, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, sets out how the Secretary of State and Natural England must go about fulfilling the coastal access duty, and sets out what they must take into account. Under the provision as drafted, they must have regard to the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route, the desirability of the route being close to the sea and providing views of the sea and, as far as reasonably practicable, they must ensure that interruptions to the route are kept to a minimum. That is clearly stated in subsection (2). They must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land, and the interests of any persons with a relevant interest in the land. That means that a balance would be struck regarding the particular piece of landnot that the interests of the relevant person should be set against the interests of the public in the route and in coastal access as a whole. However, the coastal access duty requires Natural England to propose a route, and it must bear that in mind when trying to strike a fair balance. The body is under a duty to consider all options for the route, between the public interest in having the route and the interest of the landowner in having it cross his or her land. That will necessarily involve a balancing exercise between different landowners interests.
It is our intention that Natural England and the Secretary of State do everything that is reasonably practicable to achieve a fair balance. I cannot support the amendment, as requiring that Natural England and the Secretary of State aim to strike a fair balance is a strong inducement for them to do so, and we provide additional protection by making the Secretary of State jointly responsible with Natural England for making that decision, which should reassure those with an interest in the land. If they failed to do so, a person with a relevant interest in the land could object to the route under the procedure set out in schedule 19. We hope that consensus can be achieved in most cases, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated. That balance lies at the heart of our proposals, and I believe that the correct balance has been struck. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment on the basis of those reassurances.

Richard Benyon: My amendment was sensible, in that it sought to rebalance the fair balance, if the Minister will allow me to express a tautology. However, I understand the points that have been made, and hope that through this process we are able to reassure all sides in the debate that the fair balance can be achieved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 291, page 187, line 23, at end insert
( ) owns the sporting rights.

To ensure that those who own the sporting rights separate to being the owner or occupier are included in the statutory provisions for consultation etc.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in clause 296, page 196, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert
(a) has a legal estate or legal interest in the land, or.
Amendment 43, in clause 296, page 196, line 16, at end insert
(d) owns the sporting rights..

Richard Benyon: The amendments seek to ensure that those who own sporting rights, separate from being the owner or occupier of land, are included in the statutory provisions for the consultation and in all rights that go with that status. In the Bill, the definition of a person with a relevant interest in affected land who would have particular statutory rights in the consultation process, as well as in the implementation of coastal access, covers only those who own a freehold title or a leasehold title, or are persons in lawful occupation of affected land. Unlike the definition in the CROW Act, that completely neglects those with sporting rights, who have a legitimate legal interest in land.
Sporting rights are granted by type of lease, licence or agreement, and constitute a separate property right. It is vital to understand that they are capable of being owned entirely separately from the land itself, and can be bought and sold. As a legal right, they can be enforced against all parties, including the owner or the occupier of land. Bizarrely, the current definition of a person with a relevant interest in affected land gives full statutory recognition and rights to a person with a simple permission to graze cattle, for example, which in law is an unenforceable right entirely at the discretion of the owner or occupier of the land, while owners of sporting rights have been excluded, despite sporting rights constituting in some cases a valuable property right that can be enforced against all parties, including the owner-occupier of land. If the coastal path, and in particular the additional spreading room, includes land that is used for shooting, that interest in the land will be directly affected by the path, and therefore those who own a sporting right to carry out shooting on the land should be consulted, and that right should be in the Bill. That is important from the public safety perspective, as much as any other. Owners of sporting rights need to be fully consulted and informed as to where members of the public may go, so that they can take the necessary measures to prevent any risk to the public exercising their right of access.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of starred amendment 65, which seeks to achieve the same objective; it was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just shooting interests that are concerned about this issue and that it could impact, in certain circumstances, on recreational sea fishing? He quite rightly raises the matter of public safety. Of course, the casting of heavy leads or weights from the shore is something that is potentially dangerous and sea fishermen do not want to do that if there is any chance of causing injury to innocent passers-by. There is a wider sporting interest at stake here than just shooters and I support that interest.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is for that reason that we used the words, sporting rights, rather than just the word, shooting. When we have this route in mind, we must not think simply of particular areas of the coast that may be relevant to Members in this room. There may be a very narrow area of land between the sea and, for example, a cliff, or there could be much more open land. We have to bear in mind the needs and legitimate rights of all relevant sporting organisations and their supporters.
I believe that owners of sporting rights should be included in the definition of those who have a relevant interest in land, as they are under the CROW Act. The failure to include owners of sporting rights in that way means that they are, for example, not covered by the fundamental principle and statutory obligation behind the coastal access provisions that Natural England and the Secretary of State must
aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.
We come back to that important phrase againaim to. This issue comes down fundamentally to that point.
In addition, there are provisions that enable those with a relevant interest to make an objection to a coastal access report under schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1959, which is introduced by schedule 19 to the Bill. Hence, those provisions enable those with a relevant interest to have access to the independent appeals process. It should be noted that the need for access to a right of appeal has been clearly demonstrated by the CROW Act. Under that Act, there have been approximately 3,000 appeals to date, of which about two thirds have been successful. Clearly, those responsible for implementing access do not always get it right. Clause 296 states that those with a relevant interest in land are persons whom Natural England must
take reasonable steps to consult.
A further area of concern is sporting rights on existing CROW access land and what happens when land is reclassified as coastal margin, especially in respect of spreading room. The owners of those existing sporting rights have certain rights under the CROW Act. Under section 22, for example, they can close land at their discretion. The Government propose that that right will not apply to coastal margin, with no distinction being made between the route and additional spreading room. If such rights are to be lost, owners of those rights should have full statutory rights to object to proposals to reclassify land where existing rights are at stake.
That issue does not seem to be addressed anywhere in the Bill, or in any supplementary guidance, which means that owners of sporting rights will only have the limited rights of any member of the public where land with existing CROW protections is reclassified. It is worth recalling that the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated, in respect of the absence of an independent appeals process from the Bill as it was introduced and happily later amended, that that rendered the Bill incompatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee noted:
In all comparable legislation providing for the designation of public rights of access over private land there is provision for a right of appeal by those affected to an independent court or tribunal.
The Joint Committee went on to say:
The Secretary of States decision approving the coastal access scheme will amount to the determination of the civil rights of those with an interest in the land affected, within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR.
That is the right to a fair hearing. The Joint Committee recommended that the Bill be amended to provide a right of appeal to an independent body, saying that an amendment
would remove the incompatibility with Article 6 ECHR that we have identified.
That led to the introduction of an independent right of appeal, which is greatly welcomed.
There is a key group of people who do not have the same status as those listed as having a relevant interest, which does not sit comfortably with the reasoning of the Joint Committee, which specifically refers to the determination of the civil rights of those with an interest in affected land. The position appears to be all the more arbitrary and unjust, given that the Bill gives greater protection to those with no legally enforceable rights than to the owners of sporting rights who do have a legally enforceable property right.
The Governments arguments in another place on this issue do not stand up to scrutiny. The Minister, Lord Hunt, argued that land under CROW included a number of grouse moors that made shooting interests particularly pertinent and that Natural Englands involvement with local authorities would ensure that shooting interests were properly represented because local authorities
will have an in-depth knowledge of local interests, such as shooting interests, and will be able to advise Natural England on the proper persons who should be consulted.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 31.]
First, the CROW Act makes specific provision for grouse moors. Obviously that is not particularly relevant here, but that provision applied only in respect of dogs under section 23, which the Government intend to exclude under the proposed section 3A order. That is understandable in the context of the current proposals with regard to such matters as grouse moors, although it does not address the other part of the measure, which deals with lambing. I believe that that could be of great concern to farmers in certain parts of coastal England and Wales. It also fails to take account of the fact that shooting takes place on all types of land, and especially in coastal areas. Some 59 leases are granted by the Crown estate to wildfowling clubs covering around 500 miles of the foreshore. These are very ad hoc arrangements enabling people with a great love of the countryside to contribute to conservation. It is hard to see how their rights will be properly secured under this provision.
Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that local authorities have an in-depth knowledge of the complex nature of land ownership in their areas. They understand certain aspects of it, but I would not expect my local authority to have an in-depth understanding of the wide variety of sporting rights that exist in an inland area like mine and I am sure that the same would be true in coastal areas.
Thirdly, the Government propose to disapply section 22 of CROW under the proposed section 3A order, which allows the closure of land for a limited number of days at the discretion of owners or those with an interest in the land, and is vital to those exercising sporting rights. Section 22 of CROW would continue to apply to spreading room, which is the coastal margin other than that over which the route passes, but section 24 can now be used by owners of sporting rights to obtain closures or restrictions to enable them to exercise their rights. There is an essential difference between people who own the land, and who could live many miles away and not have much interest in it, and those who are on the land all the time and could have an interest in the sporting potential that it offers.
Section 24 relates to applications for closures or restrictions in respect of land for land management. Is the activity of shooting by a person owning sporting rights separate from the land in fact land management for the purposes of the Bill? In correspondence, DEFRA has stated that
land management reasons... can include management for shooting.
Does that only cover management activities preparatory to shooting but not the actual shooting, or does it cover both? We need to know the answer. Furthermore, the process of having to apply may be impractical in cases in which the decision on whether to shoot has to be taken at short notice, particularly in pest control.
We want sea anglers to be able to go and enjoy their activity at a moments notice. That is part of the joy of activities in the countryside: one does not have to sit down and plan or spend endless hours on the internet trying to find out where exclusions exist. We should be trying to work with the grain of wishes of users of the countryside. If a request is denied, there is no guarantee of a swift appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act. Rights could be rendered meaningless by burdensome bureaucracy and delay. It should also be noted that the application of section 30 won during the Bills passage in another place could be rendered meaningless by the use of a future section 3A order by which the remaining CROW protections could be disapplied in respect of coastal margin.
How can owners of sporting rights take comfort from any assurance if they are not even covered by the statutory duty in the Bill under which Natural England and the Secretary of State must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having access and the interests of a person with a relevant interest in the land? According to the Bill, they have no relevant interest greater than any other member of the public. That is clearly nonsense. As a look at the CROW Act or the basic principles of property law in this country will confirm, the arguments advanced to date by the Government have produced no good justification for what some must see as an attack on a fundamental right where the proper relationship between citizen and state are at risk.

Martin Salter: I rise in support of the amendments. Mr. Gale, I draw your attention to the fact that we may be discussing water in the Bill, but the roof just outside this room is leaking tremendously at the moment.

Richard Benyon: Someone has nicked the lead.

Charles Walker: For fishing.

Martin Salter: Perhaps.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury, but I must tease him gently. He referred to local authorities having an in-depth knowledge of who owns what and what sporting rights exist. I am sure that he will not mind if I reveal that when he was preparing for a speech the other day for the save our rivers campaign, which he and I both support, he required a list of all the angling clubs from my constituency to his. I was happy to provide it, as I am a member of most of them, but the irony was not lost on me that some of those angling clubs rent water off him, so there are cases where even the landowner is not entirely sure which parcel of land is leased to which particular sporting interest. I mean that in a most affectionate and friendly way.
I would also like to put on record my slight surprise that although this is a hot issue, particularly among wildfowling and fishing interests, the Countryside Alliance, which is normally quick to lobby me on such matters, has been strangely quiet. However, I understand that it has opened up its usual channels of communication with the Conservative party. I would like to point out that the election has not yet occurred. It is always useful when lobbying organisations are equal across the House in making their representations.

Charles Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter: As long as the hon. Gentleman is rude to the Countryside Alliance.

Charles Walker: Is it not nice that wildfowling, like fishing, crosses all social and economic boundaries?

Martin Salter: Yes. I am conscious that Members from this party might not speak to me ever again if I continue this love-in with the hon. Member for Broxbourne.
I was lobbied heavily by an organisation for which I have immense respect, and which I cited in my contribution to the Second Reading debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for reminding the Committee of the deliberations of the Joint Committee, which raised the issue as well.
There is correspondence on record from the Minister to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that is clearly drafted by civil servants and is, frankly, nonsense. It needs to be deconstructed. I know that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will have a way forward for us, but I will read into the record the response to the initial concerns about why the arguments hold very little water, like the roof of the House of Commons.
The Departments response to BASC can be summarised as follows: shooting is not pertinent to coastal access issues. The letter mentions only wildfowling, and ignores game shooting, pest controlan issue raised by the hon. Member for Newburyfishing and stalking interests. The Department claims that coastal land is more complicated and has more interests, and that it believes that shooting tenants and holders of sporting rights should be excluded from those able to appeal against the route. That is on the record as a response from the Department to shooting interests, so there is clearly a conflict which needs to be resolved. DEFRA goes on to sweeten the pill by saying it will give Natural England the power to exclude tidal land from spreading room. However, Natural England had already planned to do that. It is not going to help a lot of the shoots, pest control, fishing or stalking interests on the coast.
Here is the irony. A Labour Government have given more rights to the tenants of grouse moors than to wildfowling clubs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs understands country pursuits. Wildfowling is a pretty ordinary down-to-earth pursuita down-in-the-mud pursuit. People spend a lot of time up to their waist or neck in water. How ironic it is that those who can afford expensive grouse moor shooting appear to be given rights in the appeal process, rather than Joe Soap participating in the centuries-old activity of wildfowling.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes the point I was trying to made in my intervention. Wildfowling is not the sole pursuit of the landed gentry. I have nothing against the landed gentry.

Martin Salter: I have.

Charles Walker: But wildfowling crosses all social and economic backgrounds and that is something we need to focus on in the amendment.

Martin Salter: This is obviously the Marxist-Leninist amendment. The problem revolves around the definition of relevant interest in land in the Bill. It clearly differs, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, by excluding tenants and holders of sporting rights. They are not able to make the same formal representations to Natural England against the proposed route, so we end up with the ridiculous situation that a golf club may appeal because it owns the land but a wildfowling or fishing club cannot. I fail to see how that can be justified in any sense.
There are about 200 wildfowling clubs around the coast. An awful lot more people are involved in those clubs than are ever going to be involved in grouse moors or the specific proposals that would be picked up under the appeals process allowed in the CROW Act. The last point I want to make is that the current position conflicts with Natural Englands draft scheme for the implementation of pathways. Clear guidance has been drafted, in consultation with DEFRA advisers, to avoid ports, industry, crops, livestock and military use but no consideration is given to the tenants of sporting rights. I have a huge amount of respect for officials in DEFRA, but this particular measure seems to have been drafted by people with a poor understanding of sporting interests on the coast. That is something in the Bill that needs to be resolved.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the opportunity to follow two good contributions to the debate. I concede that there is genuine concern among sporting interests of all sortsshooting, wildfowling or fishingand that this is important to our coastal areas, not only as an activity or pastime but by providing economic and social benefit. To put it in context, I understand that sporting interest cases under the CROW Act provisions amount to 43 per cent. of the current live restrictions on applications from landowners. That effectively covers 3.5 per cent. of the total restrictable area of open access land, excluding Forestry Commission, under the CROW Act. Those interests therefore have a sizeable impact. Those figures include lowland shootingand thus moorland shootinglive-quarry shooting, including rough shoots; deer shooting; and, of course, fishing. Putting that into context, it is worth noting that the right of access to the coastal margin will be the CROW Act right of access, and that is why I am prefacing some of my comments by saying that the CROW restrictions and exclusion systems will apply to such land. It is important to say that at the outset, because there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I hope to explain how the provisions in the Bill and in the CROW Act will work to maintain the valid interests and pastimes of people and organisations who are not landowners but who have a long and often historic interest in an area of land.
Let me deal with some of the issues that have been raised. I want to correct a misunderstanding by making it clear that section 22 of the CROW Act, concerning discretionary closures, does not apply to those with sporting interests, and that it applies only to the owners of land. In respect of section 22, we propose to remove the landowners right to make discretionary restrictions. We are doing that for several reasons, including for the availability of a coastal route that allows people access along the coast. That is central to the Governments vision, but it has to be done sensitively and in line with the duties in clause 291(3) to
aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.
I shall expand on that in a moment.
We want landowners and others to talk to Natural England from the outset. The whole basis of the consultation and what has been introduced in Natural Englands draft scheme on coastal access is predicated on the idea of real engagement and consultation, and it builds on what has been done under the voluntary provisions. We recognise that although 70 per cent. of the coast is open to access at the moment, that leaves 30 per cent. to which there is no access, not even through alternative paths.
Another issue that has been raised, in respect of the Bill and the CROW Act, is land management. I want to be emphatic about this point: land management can include shooting and fishingsporting interestsas well as actions that are preparatory to those activities. The whole gamut of sporting interests, including preparation and the activities themselves, therefore come within land management. Finally, a point was made about bureaucracy and delay in appeals against the refusal of applications for sporting interests. Restrictions can be applied well in advance of the shooting activity for a period of time, so there is time for an appeal to be heard. There are genuine concerns with which we need to deal, but there is more than one way of dealing with them.
Amendments 34 and 43 seek specifically to extend the definition of those with a relevant interest in land that is affected by proposals to include those with sporting rights. Amendment 46 would amend the description in clause 296 of what is a relevant interest to add those with a legal interest; that would include those with a sporting right, as well as those with an easement or a right of common. That is relevant, because Natural England and the Secretary of State must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having a right of access and the interests of persons with a relevant interest in the land. Persons with a relevant interest in the affected land may also make that objection to Natural England about a coastal access report under the procedure for hearing objections that we introduced in the Bill in the other place.
The CROW Act definition of interest in land includes rights of common, as well as grazing and sporting rights. I reiterate the comments that Lord Hunt made on Report in the other place about those interests being particularly relevant to the land types involved in the CROW Act. CROW landopen country, including mountain, moor, heath and downincludes a number of grouse moors, as has been mentioned, which makes shooting interests particularly pertinent. Rights of common were also particularly important, as the mapping process involved mapping areas of registered common land.

Martin Salter: The Countryside Alliance, the Country Land and Business Association and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are not ill-informed bodies. Will the Minister explain why, despite the assurances given by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in the other place, the fears and concerns do not appear to have been allayed? How much progress does he hope to make in allaying those fears and concerns if he is merely repeating what was said in the other place?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that those bodies have genuine concerns. Certain interests have taken place for many years, if not generations, in some places, and those bodies want not only assurance, but to know that there is a way through this and that they can make their representations and be heard. I will flesh this out a little bit, and I will not only repeat what was said in the other place. I have a proposal, because although I am not a fisherman and do not engage in shooting, I recognise that somebody who takes part in such activities and has genuine concerns whether the Bill will end such activities will not only want to hear assurances, but will want proper access to engage in the process. Those people will say, Show me, Minister. How can I have an impact on this? I will come to that in a moment. To deal with my hon. Friends point, those concerns are still out there.
Let me state that, as I said at the beginning, I recognise the role that sporting interests such as shooting and angling play in the rural economy, but all interestsI stress all interestswill be taken into account when Natural England draws up proposals for the coastal route and margin. It is important that I mention that that will not be an arbitrary line or a coastal margin drawn on a map by a man in Whitehall. The Bill provides for extensive preliminary work and consultation before Natural England draws up its recommendations. The work that is done on the ground, with the local interests and with regard to the duties contained in the Bill, means that the people doing the work will have to go out and listen to all the various concerns and try to reconcile some of the competing interests out there.
Natural England said, in its draft guidance that I mentioned earlier, that it will work with shoot managers when considering the best alignment for the trail. So it has said on the record that it intends to do that and, as a Minister, I will hold it to that. I have no doubtI have seen it working on the groundthat it intends to do that. This will be a coastal route built upwards from the ground with local interests.
Natural England has also said that it will draft proposals that will include information on any exclusions and restrictions on access that it considers necessary. Again, those will be based on what it has heard on the ground, working not only with local landowners, and so on, but those with interests, including sporting interests. Natural England will have to advertise the proposals and invite comment, providing the opportunity for absolutely anyone, whether an individual or a sporting interest organisation, to make their views known, so that those can be taken into account by Natural England.
There are the safeguards, if those with other interests feel that Natural England has not taken their views into account adequately in the final proposals. Paragraph 7 of schedule 19 states:
Representations about a coastal access report may be made by any person to Natural England,
whether a legal entity, person, individual or organisation, including those with historical sporting interests along a part of the coast. Those representations will go, in summary, to the Secretary of State, along with Natural Englands comments on them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will read the comments to see whether they have been taken into account properly, in line with clause 291(3), which refers to
a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access...and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.
That includes representations by certain organisations specified in regulations.
The Secretary of State must take representations into account when making a determination on the route. As Lord Hunt said in the other place, we expect to include in the list the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union, and we are open to including other organisations, such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which I met recently, and representatives of fishing interests. We shall consult on the regulations in due course, which will provide the opportunity to decide which organisations we should include. I am sure that Committee members have strong views about which organisations should be included in the regulations.
The Secretary of State must consider such information when reaching his determination on any proposal in Natural Englands coastal access report. Obviously, the Secretary of State will take particular note of representations made by anyone with important and valuable interests, such as sporting rights. I am convinced that the extensive consultation process that Natural England will undertake before drawing up its report, along with the right to make representations on the report, which must be considered by Natural England and the Secretary of State in reaching a determination, will ensure that all interested parties have opportunities to express their views. That bottom-up, consultative approach and preliminary engagement with peoplethe advertising and invitation for commentsis quite different from what has come before.
Given this very different approach to coastal land, and the consultative nature of the process, we do not believe that the definition of those with a relevant interest has to be the same as under CROW. We have therefore identified in the Bill the people whom it is appropriate to include in the definition of those with a relevant interest in affected land. They are set out in clause 291 and proposed new section 55J in clause 296, and they comprise landowners, leaseholders and those in lawful occupation of the land. That is the most appropriate approach for coastal land.
I shall give one final safeguard. Those with relevant interests, as defined by section 45 of the CROW Act, which includes sporting rights, will have the same rights as they do on CROW land. In other words, they can apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land management reasons. That takes me back to my original comment that sporting rights fall within land management. That can include the management of a sporting activity, the activity itself and the holding of commercial events associated with the activity. Such sporting activities might well include shooting and fishing. Those with rights enabling them to carry out such activities on access land can apply for restrictions or exclusions if necessary. That process, with its propensity towards exclusions for sporting rights under CROW, has worked very well. We have made it clear that the Government do not intend to make changes to the categories of people who can make an application for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act, and that ability remains in place.
I said at the outset that the concerns expressed are genuine, but my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West has asked why those fears have not been allayed. Genuine concerns remain, but it is not appropriate to accept the amendments, becauseI am sorry to repeat thisthere is more than one way to skin a cat. Those representations can be heard and those exclusions and exemptions can be applied forin fact, it has worked very well under CROW.
Perhaps the Committee will support me in another matter. I am interested in convening a summit or conference of those with an interest in sporting rightsanglers, shooters and othersso my very good team of officials and I can sit down with them and seek not only to clarify, expand and reassure, but, where necessary, to introduce additional guidance to explain how representations can be heard under both CROW and this Bill and how their interests can be protected. That should provide the proper reassurance that perhaps they have not yet received.

Martin Salter: I do not think that any Committee member believes that it is the Governments intention to restrict or disrupt the legitimate activities of wildfowling clubs or sea fishing in such locations. Most of us who picked up that baton and ran with it would be satisfied if the wildfowling clubs and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation were reassured that their appeal rights will be as robust as the Minister has indicated. What is the time scale for bringing the Bill back on Report? That will tell us how long we have to engage in that consultation and clarification process.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I cannot anticipate the permutations that go through the usual channels, but we hope to be back in October, subject to any subsequent delays, which I hope will not occur. That will give us time over the summer. I am more than willingif I say this on the record, it might actually get out thereto come back here in the recess and bring together, with the assistance of my hon. Friend and others, the right group of people to talk about how to explain and clarify how best they can protect their interests. I am also willing, where necessary, to bring forward supplementary guidance to clarify that, because those organisations and people have genuine and valid concerns, and I think that there are valid and genuine ways to ensure that those concerns are heard.

Martin Salter: That will certainly be sufficient for now, provided that the hon. Members who have raised the issue, particularly the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Newbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, have an opportunity to attend that summit on shooting and sporting interests, because we all need to be assured before we come back on Report that the issue has been sorted out.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome that, because I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have a good feeling for the type of organisations and stakeholdersto use that horrible termthat would be relevant for such a meeting, including those who would want to be involved during the summer.
On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment and to engage fruitfully and constructively with us over the summer, so that we can work with those people who have sporting interests not only to give them clarity and reassurance, but to show them what they can use in the Bill and the CROW Act, because they have actually already made use of the CROW Act successfully to date.

Richard Benyon: The problem with that element of the Bill is that it relates to a theme that runs through the whole of part 9, which is quite a woolly piece of legislation. It might have been deliberately designed in that way because the Minister wants it to be flexible, but my worry about keeping it woolly is that it allows for interpretation. That might be from Natural England, in consultation with the local authority, but although that might work supremely well for 95 per cent. of the 30 per cent. yet to be accessed, the remaining 5 per cent. could militate against legitimate sporting bodies.
Whatever the Minister says, access to the objections provisions secured in another place will be weaker under that arrangement. It is perfectly simple to add that one category under clause 291(4). I am sure that his officials are saying to him, If you concede this, you will open the flood gates to every conceivable organisation. I counsel him that that will not happen. I have sat up in the watches of the night trying to contemplate the interested bodies that will beat down his door saying, We deserve exactly the same access to consultation as the sporting bodies, so what is so special about us? But for the life of me, I cannot think of any.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not want my door being beaten downat least no more than currently happens. I think that we have a way forward, but one reservation, which I have not referred to, is that the amendments would bolt certainty into the Bill, which is not needed, but they do not identify the costs of the representations or objections that might be made. There are serious concerns over the effect of passing the amendments in this shape, when we do not know the cost implications. The economic assessment of our current proposals is that they will cost about £1.5 million, but I have no idea what the amendments will cost, and I suspect, as well intentioned as they are, the hon. Gentleman does not know either. Therefore, if there is an alternative route forward, we should work with those with sporting interests to make it work.

Richard Benyon: There are colleagues who are always the voices in my head on costs. I suspect that the Minister is applying the 43 per cent. of objections under CROW that came from sporting interests to his thoughts about costs. I submit that there would be a much smaller number of objections for this than there are under CROWa very small number indeed. CROW encompassed elements of moorland, where there are substantial high-income areas, so I do not agree that the issue would apply.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To clarify, the 43 per cent. that I referred to earlier is a measure of the success of the existing CROW provisions. Of the live applications in place, 43 per cent. concern sporting interests. A propensity not to object, but to apply for exemptions and exclusions based on sporting interests is a singular measure of the success of the CROW provisionsthey have worked.

Richard Benyon: I take the Ministers point, but I am not sure whether I agree with him on cost.
My other point relates to liability. We should consider the interests of the sporting groups that we have been talking about, such as wildfowling. Wildfowling rights have developed over a great many years, and those involved tend to be esoteric individuals who understand and know the foreshore, the marshes and the adjacent land. If they have to be concerned with liability, it will be a huge cost to them and may require different liability insurance. The cost should reflect their status as consultees.
Natural Englands draft scheme, page 33, section 7.6.7, specifically mentions shooting and makes some helpful indications of its approach:
Shooters should assume at all times that members of the public may be present and take all necessary precautions to ensure their safety, in line with voluntary codes of Practice
At all times could include hours of the day when there is half-light or little light, and this measure will impose new concerns for shooters close to a path. While the guidance mentions specifically that marshes may not be included as part of the spreading room, a person could still be on a marsh close to the 4 m path and worry about public safety.

Martin Salter: I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Gentleman has saidhis amendment is similar to my starred amendmentbut we now have four amendments seeking the same thing, so there is a drafting issue about what each would achieve. The Minister has agreed to hold a summit with relevant interests and to write in and amend the guidance. Bottoming out this issue with the people who have been lobbying me and him, before we determine it in Committee, makes immense sense. Will the hon. Gentleman take my guarantee that I will join him, if the issue is not resolved satisfactorily when we come back on Report? I will have no hesitation in joining him and other hon. Members who are concerned about the matter in the Division Lobby at some future point. On that basis, is he more reassured?

Richard Benyon: Having drawn lines in the sand, I am about to cross them by saying that I sense that the hon. Member for Reading, West feels that the Minister is moving in his direction. I am happy to take part in a summit with the Ministerhe is good companybut he is a very busy man, and I would like to resolve the matter now and save him the bother. Given his assurance to the hon. Member for Reading, West that we can deal with the matter, and given the understanding that I have gained from meetings with the Minister and his officials, I believe that it is a front-loaded consultationI think that was the expressionand that interested parties, such as those with supporting interests, can be given a triple-lock assurance that their interests will be understood at an early stage. With that provision, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 291 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.(David Wright.)

Adjourned till Thursday 9 July at Nine oclock.